Terrence Watson: I wouldn't vote

Western Standard blogger Terrence Watson says he wouldn't vote in the US presidential election even if he could.

Terrence Watson - November 3, 2008

Well, it would be irrational for me to vote. But if I thought it was my duty to vote, I'd still choose "None of the above."

Barr: No, I wouldn't even vote for Bob Barr. He's marginally better than Ron Paul on some things, but just not enough. He said in a radio interview he differs from conservatives because he believes in a right to privacy (for example.) I'm not sure his record reflects that belief.

Barr co-authored the Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits the federal government from treating gay marriages in any way that is the same as it treats opposite sex marriages. How that's an example of "federalism", I have no idea. It doesn't even qualify as "separate but equal" treatment.

He's a bit of an opportunistic weasel when it comes to marijuana decriminalization.

At best, just another "states' rights" libertarian. At worse, a fifth columnist in the libertarian movement.

Obama: Well, it's nice to see a Democrat be so open about his socialist ideas. Wants to spread the wealth. Wants to raise the capital gains tax even if that will reduce government revenue, because of "fairness." I'm convinced he's read and absorbed at least some of the work of John Rawls. Seems like a very smart guy.

While socialism sucks, there is one positive, oft-neglected aspect of a potential Obama presidency: He'd probably nominate liberals to the Supreme Court. Now, ok, bear with me: the justices most likely to retire soon are Ginsburg and either Stevens or Breyer (can't remember which.) Obama would replace them with liberals. Liberals being replaced by liberals is not necessarily a bad thing. It would leave Justice Kennedy with all the power still -- and Kennedy is a libertarian, or close to it.

I like 5-4 decisions, especially when it is a libertarian who holds the balance of power.